and many more benefits!

Find us on Facebook

GMAT Club Timer Informer

Hi GMATClubber!

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

Below is an excerpt from a letter that was sent by the [#permalink]
02 May 2005, 00:59

1

This post receivedKUDOS

9

This post wasBOOKMARKED

Below is an excerpt from a letter that was sent by the chairman of a corporation to the stockholders.

A number of charges have been raised against me, some serious, some trivial. Individuals seeking to control the corporation for their own purposes have demanded my resignation. Remember that no court of law in any state has found me guilty of any criminal offense whatsoever. In the American tradition, as you know, an individual is considered innocent until proven guilty. Furthermore, as the corporation’s unbroken six-year record of growth will show, my conduct of my official duties as chairman has only helped enhance the success of the corporation, and so benefited every stockholder.

Which of the following can be properly inferred from the excerpt?

(A) The chairman believes that all those who have demanded his resignation are motivated by desire to control the corporation for their own purposes.(B) Any misdeeds that the chairman may have committed were motivated by his desire to enhance the success of the corporation.(C) The chairman is innocent of any criminal offense.(D) The corporation has expanded steadily over the past six years.(E) Any legal proceedings against the chairman have resulted in his acquittal.

Below is an excerpt from a letter that was sent by the [#permalink]
24 Jul 2010, 17:32

Below is an excerpt from a letter that was sent by the chairman of a corporation to the stockholders.A number of charges have been raised against me, some serious, some trivial. Individuals seeking to control the corporation for their own purposes have demanded my resignation. Remember that no court of law in any state has found me guilty of any criminal offense whatsoever. In the American tradition, as you know, an individual is considered innocent until proven guilty. Furthermore, as the corporation’s unbroken six-year record of growth will show, my conduct of my official duties as chairman has only helped enhance the success of the corporation, and so benefited every stockholder.Which of the following can be properly inferred from the excerpt?(A) The chairman believes that all those who have demanded his resignation are motivated by desire to control the corporation for their own purposes.(B) Any misdeeds that the chairman may have committed were motivated by his desire to enhance the success of the corporation.(C) The chairman is innocent of any criminal offense.(D) The corporation has expanded steadily over the past six years.(E) Any legal proceedings against the chairman have resulted in his acquittal. _________________

Consider me giving KUDOS, if you find my post helpful.If at first you don't succeed, you're running about average. ~Anonymous

(A) The chairman believes that all those who have demanded his resignation are motivated by desire to control the corporation for their own purposes.-->chairman is concerned about Individuals seeking to control the corporation not all. All is broder/extreme.(B) Any misdeeds that the chairman may have committed were motivated by his desire to enhance the success of the corporation-->cud be true but cannot be proven using the facts in the argument.(C) The chairman is innocent of any criminal offense.(D) The corporation has expanded steadily over the past six years.(E) Any legal proceedings against the chairman have resulted in his acquittal-->goes beyod information given in the argument

"Remember that no court of law in any state has found me guilty of any criminal offense whatsoever."The chariman does not mention affirmatively that he is not guilty of any criminal offense but instead says "no court of law in any state 'has found'..."

So it cannot be inferred definitively that "(C) The chairman is innocent of any criminal offense."

From the excerpt relevant to this option: "the corporation’s unbroken six-year record of growth will show". The only information I can infer is that corporation had growth. In GMAT, afaik, each word in the inference MUST be justified and option D does not justify the use of word "steadily".

I completely agree with this. This same logic can be applied to the "correct" answer. The passage clearly states that "Individuals seeking to control the corporation for their own purposes have demanded my resignation." This can be read that those who are seeking his resignation want do so in order to control the company. It can also be read that not all people who are seeking his resignation what it for this purpose.

At the same time, we can read "as the corporation’s unbroken six-year record of growth will show..." just as it is; that there is six-year growth. We have absolutely no idea how steady it has been. Not all growth is "steady". I think either A or D require one to take an equal leap of faith, and both are equally "correct".

Nowhere in the stimulus it is mentioned STEADILY. Unbroken growth not= steadily. It may be 2%, 7%, 6%, 5%, 7%, 9%.C can be wrong. He may have done good for the organization, good growth, no charges against him still proven but he may have done something unethical or show bad behaviour towards him collegues/seniors thats why he is asked to resign.

In A, all those who clearifies that only a set of people as per the context, have asked for chairman's resignation.

You are right (refer to the bolded part), but lets reconsider option A once again- Chairman says that "Individuals seeking to control" the corporation for blah-2 purposes have asked "for his resignation". But option A seems to convey- "all those who have demanded his resignation" want to "control the corporation" - almost reverse of what stimuli states, no

Now let us have numerical example- Say there are 20 individuals, who want to control and there are about 30 individuals, who have asked for resignation. Then A will be fail us here. please note one point no where we are told that only people, who want to have control are the one, who have asked for resignation .

Sure D is not gold plated like GOI , but what to do, life is like that way _________________

Re: A number of charges have been raised against me, some [#permalink]
24 Jun 2012, 06:46

IMO-D

(A) The chairman believes that all those who have demanded his resignation are motivated by desire to control the corporation for their own purposes.

Maybe "those who have demanded his resignation" are just legal bodies of the corporation not the ones who can directly control/desire to control the corporation for their own purpose.

(B) Any misdeeds that the chairman may have committed were motivated by his desire to enhance the success of the corporation.

Of course, if this be the case then why will he be offended with the charges by the insiders?Federal/legal team would have cornered him for this though he was charged by the insiders.Also,it is possible but the profit of stakeholders and corporation was also mentioned,so this can't be the only reason.

(C) The chairman is innocent of any criminal offense.

Charges are mentioned ..."A number of charges have been raised against me, some serious, some trivial.."

(D) The corporation has expanded steadily over the past six years.

Clearly mentioned in the excerpt..." the corporation’s unbroken six-year record of growth will show..."

(E) Any legal proceedings against the chairman have resulted in his acquittal

No legal (federal ) proceedings were against him (though the charges were made by the insiders of the corporation) ...."Remember that no court of law in any state has found me guilty of any criminal offense whatsoever. In the American tradition, as you know, an individual is considered innocent until proven guilty." _________________

Re: A number of charges have been raised against me, some [#permalink]
01 Jan 2013, 08:02

I found that explanations for answer choice A were not well substantiated.

The CEO quotes : Individuals seeking to control the corporation for their own purposes have demanded my resignation.

Answer choice A states: The chairman believes that all those who have demanded his resignation are motivated by desire to control the corporation for their own purposes.

We cannot infer ALL those from the CEO's quote. Why? There could be individuals seeking to control the corp BUT there could be individuals who are pissed at the CEO's performance inspite of his growth record. The word ALL includes those individuals not mentioned in the passage.

A number of charges have been raised against me, some [#permalink]
06 Mar 2013, 03:22

2

This post receivedKUDOS

A number of charges have been raised against me, some serious, some trivial. Individuals seeking to control the corporation for their own purposes have demanded my resignation. Remember that no court of law in any state has found me guilty of any criminal offense whatsoever. In the American tradition, as you know, an individual is considered innocent until proven guilty. Furthermore, as the corporation’s unbroken six-year record of growth will show, my conduct of my official duties as chairman has only helped enhance the success of the corporation, and so benefited every stockholder.

Which of the following can be properly inferred from the excerpt?

(A) The chairman believes that all those who have demanded his resignation are motivated by desire to control the corporation for their own purposes.(B) Any misdeeds that the chairman may have committed were motivated by his desire to enhance the success of the corporation.(C) The chairman is innocent of any criminal offense.(D) The corporation has expanded steadily over the past six years.(E) Any legal proceedings against the chairman have resulted in his acquittal.

This is a good question and adheres to a good gmat-like question but is not a complete the passage question. It is a must be true question or conclusion

A number of charges have been raised against me, some serious, some trivial. Individuals seeking to control the corporation for their own purposes have demanded my resignation.

In other words: someone tray to discredit someonelse. Untill now eveything is fine.

Remember that no court of law in any state has found me guilty of any criminal offense whatsoever. In the American tradition, as you know, an individual is considered innocent until proven guilty.

If I'm guilty then I am not innocent and viceversa. Ok

Furthermore, as the corporation’s unbroken six-year record of growth will show, my conduct of my official duties as chairman has only helped enhance the success of the corporation, and so benefited every stockholder.

The firm went well (maybe as never before) so my conduct was blameless

Which of the following can be properly inferred from the excerpt?

A must true question is always something that is unstated in the stimulus and that you can deduce from the passage

(A) The chairman believes that all those who have demanded his resignation are motivated by desire to control the corporation for their own purposes.

Stated in the passage. We already know. Wrong

(B) Any misdeeds that the chairman may have committed were motivated by his desire to enhance the success of the corporation.

True and not. W have not sufficient information from the passage. If you read carefully it , you can see that this is not completely true

(C) The chairman is innocent of any criminal offense.

We do not know, for sure

(D) The corporation has expanded steadily over the past six years.

This is what we know for SURE. we can infer this from the third sentence or part of the passage, above

(E) Any legal proceedings against the chairman have resulted in his acquittal.

A number of charges have been raised against me, some serious, some trivial. Individuals seeking to control the corporation for their own purposes have demanded my resignation. Remember that no court of law in any state has found me guilty of any criminal offense whatsoever. In the American tradition, as you know, an individual is considered innocent until proven guilty. Furthermore, as the corporation’s unbroken six-year record of growth will show, my conduct of my official duties as chairman has only helped enhance the success of the corporation, and so benefited every stockholder.

Which of the following can be properly inferred from the excerpt?

(A) The chairman believes that all those who have demanded his resignation are motivated by desire to control the corporation for their own purposes.(B) Any misdeeds that the chairman may have committed were motivated by his desire to enhance the success of the corporation.(C) The chairman is innocent of any criminal offense.(D) The corporation has expanded steadily over the past six years.(E) Any legal proceedings against the chairman have resulted in his acquittal.

This is a conclusion/inference question. The correct answer would be something already given in the passage or something you can infer without a doubt.Let's look at each option:

(A) The chairman believes that all those who have demanded his resignation are motivated by desire to control the corporation for their own purposes.

The chairman only says, "Individuals seeking to control the corporation for their own purposes have demanded my resignation." It is possible that A, B and C are three individuals who are seeking to control the corporation and have demanded his resignation. That makes his statement correct. In addition, there could be others who are not seeking to control the corporation but have demanded his resignation. This will make option (A) incorrect. So we cannot say that the chairman's statement implies that EVERYONE who demanded his resignation is motivated by desire to control the corporation. Note that the chairman's statement only gives you partial information - there is at least one person who wishes to control the corp and has demanded his resignation. The chairman doesn't talk about everyone who wants his resignation.

(B) Any misdeeds that the chairman may have committed were motivated by his desire to enhance the success of the corporation.Not mentioned. His misdeeds and his success as the chairman are two different things.

(C) The chairman is innocent of any criminal offense.We cannot infer that. All we can say is that he hasn't been found guilty yet and he will be considered innocent (as of now at least) in the American tradition. Whether he actually is innocent, we can't say.

(D) The corporation has expanded steadily over the past six years.The corporation has an unbroken six year record of growth. So we can say that the corporation has been expanding for the past six years. Here, I would doubt the 'steadily' part since we don't know whether the growth has been steady (let's say same rate of growth) but considering that no other option comes close to being an inference, I would have to overlook it.

(E) Any legal proceedings against the chairman have resulted in his acquittal.We don't know that. All we know is that no court has found him guilty yet. Perhaps, some cases are still pending and the verdict is not out yet. We cannot say that he has been acquitted in every case.

Re: A number of charges have been raised against me, some [#permalink]
14 Mar 2013, 04:04

I am confused between C and D....

C says "the chairman is innocent" It is clearly stated that in America anyone who has not been proven guilty is innocent, Since we know from the stimulus that chairman has not been proven guilty (and of course this case is from america, otherwise why would stimulus mention American Tradition?? as it will be redundant then) so we can directly deduce from stimulus that "Chairman is not guilty"

D Talks about the growth of the company and growth doesn't necessarily mean Expansion, which I relate to size...Growth can be in any terms such as reputation, market share, market capitalization or mere profits....we cannot be sure about this option...

I just want to understand where I am going wrong as official answers cannot be challenged.. any help is appreciated...

Re: A number of charges have been raised against me, some [#permalink]
14 Mar 2013, 19:51

Expert's post

ratinarace wrote:

I am confused between C and D....

C says "the chairman is innocent" It is clearly stated that in America anyone who has not been proven guilty is innocent, Since we know from the stimulus that chairman has not been proven guilty (and of course this case is from america, otherwise why would stimulus mention American Tradition?? as it will be redundant then) so we can directly deduce from stimulus that "Chairman is not guilty"

D Talks about the growth of the company and growth doesn't necessarily mean Expansion, which I relate to size...Growth can be in any terms such as reputation, market share, market capitalization or mere profits....we cannot be sure about this option...

I just want to understand where I am going wrong as official answers cannot be challenged.. any help is appreciated...

Look at what is given in the argument:"no court of law in any state has found me guilty of any criminal offense whatsoever. In the American tradition, as you know, an individual is considered innocent until proven guilty."

The point is that in the American tradition, an individual is CONSIDERED innocent until proven guilty. Since no court has found him guilty, at best we can say that 'he is CONSIDERED innocent in American tradition.'Is he actually innocent? We don't know. He is only considered innocent and that too only in American tradition. The French may consider him guilty even if their court doesn't find him guilty. He may actually be guilty even if he is not considered guilty in the American tradition just because the court could not establish his guilt. We cannot deduce that he actually is innocent. 'He is considered innocent until ....' and 'He is innocent' are different things.

For a non-business person, 'corporation has unbroken six-year record of growth' is the same as 'corporation has unbroken six-year record of expansion'. Growth can be in terms of many other things but it would be specifically mentioned in that case. Only the word 'growth' implies the most common meaning 'development in size' which is the most common meaning of the word 'expansion' too. As I mentioned in my response above, I am not exactly satisfied with option (D) either but it is certainly the best of the lot. _________________

Re: A number of charges have been raised against me, some [#permalink]
19 Mar 2013, 20:14

Expert's post

Archit143 wrote:

VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:

ratinarace wrote:

I am confused between C and D....

C says "the chairman is innocent" It is clearly stated that in America anyone who has not been proven guilty is innocent, Since we know from the stimulus that chairman has not been proven guilty (and of course this case is from america, otherwise why would stimulus mention American Tradition?? as it will be redundant then) so we can directly deduce from stimulus that "Chairman is not guilty"

D Talks about the growth of the company and growth doesn't necessarily mean Expansion, which I relate to size...Growth can be in any terms such as reputation, market share, market capitalization or mere profits....we cannot be sure about this option...

I just want to understand where I am going wrong as official answers cannot be challenged.. any help is appreciated...

Look at what is given in the argument:"no court of law in any state has found me guilty of any criminal offense whatsoever. In the American tradition, as you know, an individual is considered innocent until proven guilty."

The point is that in the American tradition, an individual is CONSIDERED innocent until proven guilty. Since no court has found him guilty, at best we can say that 'he is CONSIDERED innocent in American tradition.'Is he actually innocent? We don't know. He is only considered innocent and that too only in American tradition. The French may consider him guilty even if their court doesn't find him guilty. He may actually be guilty even if he is not considered guilty in the American tradition just because the court could not establish his guilt. We cannot deduce that he actually is innocent. 'He is considered innocent until ....' and 'He is innocent' are different things.

For a non-business person, 'corporation has unbroken six-year record of growth' is the same as 'corporation has unbroken six-year record of expansion'. Growth can be in terms of many other things but it would be specifically mentioned in that case. Only the word 'growth' implies the most common meaning 'development in size' which is the most common meaning of the word 'expansion' too. As I mentioned in my response above, I am not exactly satisfied with option (D) either but it is certainly the best of the lot.

HI KarishmaI got stuck with A....tell me whther i am right or wrong...Argument says Individual where as the option says All the individual......

Archit

Yes, the word 'all' is a problem.The chairman only says, "Individuals seeking to control the corporation for their own purposes have demanded my resignation." It is possible that A, B and C are three individuals who are seeking to control the corporation and have demanded his resignation. That makes his statement correct. In addition, there could be others who are not seeking to control the corporation but have demanded his resignation. This will make option (A) incorrect. So we cannot say that the chairman's statement implies that EVERYONE who demanded his resignation is motivated by desire to control the corporation. Note that the chairman's statement only gives you partial information - there is at least one person who wishes to control the corp and has demanded his resignation. The chairman doesn't talk about everyone who wants his resignation.

Another problem I have with (A) is that it says that 'the chairman believes ....' Point is, we don't know what he believes. We only know what he says and we only have to take that to be true. We know that he said .... We don't know whether he actually believes in what he said. _________________

Re: A number of charges have been raised against me, some [#permalink]
19 Mar 2013, 20:26

@carcass

Quote:

carcass wrote:(A) The chairman believes that all those who have demanded his resignation are motivated by desire to control the corporation for their own purposes.

Stated in the passage. We already know. Wrong

it is not for this reason that A is wrong A is wrong coz of "all" .we know from the passage :Individuals seeking to control the corporation for their own purposes have demanded my resignation.thus there might be some individual who are not guided by this motivation

Re: A number of charges have been raised against me, some [#permalink]
25 Apr 2013, 09:28

Expert's post

fameatop wrote:

Hi Mike,I am not able to understand how come option C is incorrect & D is correct. By assuming certain things both options can be proven correct or incorrect. Kindly throw some light on the same. I have already gone through the explanation by Karishma but i am not convinced. (D) The corporation has expanded steadily over the past six years. Just in pointSTEADILY can mean two things-1) Constant growth rate2) Variable growth rate but positive.Stimulus - as the corporation’s unbroken six-year record of growth will showWaiting eagerly for your valuable inputs. Regards, Fame

Dear Fame

First of all, as for (C) ---- consider OJ Simpson. Until a couple years ago, OJ Simpson had not been convicted in court, much like this CEO in this prompt. How many people actually think that OJ Simpson was innocent? I would argue many people thought that he was guilty of the murder of his wife. The justice system in the United States is stacked to prevent, as much as possible, sentencing an innocent man to prison, but the consequence of that slant is that a lot of guilty folks with blood on their hands walk free, just as OJ did. This CEO was not convicted. It is an incredibly naive leap to assume, therefore, he is truly innocent. Rather, whatever criminal act he committed, he got away with them. He beat the rap! (C) is a temping answer for folks who have absolutely no idea how the criminal justice system works.

As for (D) --- the prompt indeed says --- "the corporation’s unbroken six-year record of growth" --- the ordinary common-sense way of describing that would be "steady growth". For GMAT purposes, no one is going to use the term "steady growth" and expect us to assume this means the mathematically identical growth rate over the given period. That is reading way too much into the phrase. Fame, in order to succeed on the GMAT CR, you need to understand how phrases and arguments are used in a real world context. What would "steady growth" mean in a WSJ article? in an articles in the Economist magazine? At this point, I think it would help you to read a new article, in one of those sources, for each new CR question you do. If you get caught in a place of inventing your own private meanings for phrases like "steady growth", you will hoodwink yourself out of one CR question after another.

This is a good question and adheres to a good gmat-like question but is not a complete the passage question. It is a must be true question or conclusion

A number of charges have been raised against me, some serious, some trivial. Individuals seeking to control the corporation for their own purposes have demanded my resignation.

In other words: someone tray to discredit someonelse. Untill now eveything is fine.

Remember that no court of law in any state has found me guilty of any criminal offense whatsoever. In the American tradition, as you know, an individual is considered innocent until proven guilty.

If I'm guilty then I am not innocent and viceversa. Ok

Furthermore, as the corporation’s unbroken six-year record of growth will show, my conduct of my official duties as chairman has only helped enhance the success of the corporation, and so benefited every stockholder.

The firm went well (maybe as never before) so my conduct was blameless

Which of the following can be properly inferred from the excerpt?

A must true question is always something that is unstated in the stimulus and that you can deduce from the passage

(A) The chairman believes that all those who have demanded his resignation are motivated by desire to control the corporation for their own purposes.

Stated in the passage. We already know. Wrong

(B) Any misdeeds that the chairman may have committed were motivated by his desire to enhance the success of the corporation.

True and not. W have not sufficient information from the passage. If you read carefully it , you can see that this is not completely true

(C) The chairman is innocent of any criminal offense.

We do not know, for sure

(D) The corporation has expanded steadily over the past six years.

This is what we know for SURE. we can infer this from the third sentence or part of the passage, above

(E) Any legal proceedings against the chairman have resulted in his acquittal.

An answer that I call filler, fluff.....wrong

D must be the answer. kudos for your good question

If u say A is wrong since its given in the question premise , then similarly C is also given in the question premise ,but you choose it as correct ....y ? Plus Can you elaborate more how A is eliminated I was stuck between choices A and C but picked A . I thought growth and expansion are two different things .

Re: A number of charges have been raised against me, some [#permalink]
30 Apr 2013, 08:18

The question is asking which of the options can be inferred from the argument.

A) It is possible that all individuals seeking to control are demanding for resignation, but not of all people demanding for resignation are motivated by self interest. So, "individuals seeking to control" could be a smaller subset of "people demanding resignation". So, we cannot infer this option from the stimulus.B) The stimulus neither mentioned the motivation behind chairman's action nor mentioned chairman's confession on his misdeed. So, we cannot infer this option from the stimulus.C) The chairman is not convicted so far; this does not mean he is innocent in reality. There is no evidence on whether the chairman is really innocent and hence we cannot infer this option from the stimulus.D) This statement can be inferred from the stimulus as it says "corporation’s unbroken six-year record of growth".E) All closed cases may have acquitted the chairman. But there is no information on open cases. So, we cannot infer this option from the stimulus.